Last Gasp Saloon


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Last Gasp Saloon

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 . . . 26 · Next
Author Message
Profile John Clark
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 99
Posts: 16515
Credit: 4,418,829
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1298966 - Posted: 26 Oct 2012, 15:06:00 UTC

Like Chris

When I reached for my National pension, I was advised I had the full entitlement as I contributed for 44 years. Luckily, I worked full time, and moved to another full time just before redundancy struck several times in the old firm,
____________
It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues



Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12998
Credit: 7,664,901
RAC: 6,422
United States
Message 1299008 - Posted: 26 Oct 2012, 17:33:18 UTC - in response to Message 1298916.

As there is no money in the kitty for future pension payouts & the government wanting everyone to buy their own, if the current generation does exactly that, what happens to the generation just retired as there is no money coming in to pay them?

I believe you are just waking up to the reality that your politicians perpetrated a ponzi scheme upon your populace. Now someone will have to pay taxes to fund it, or it goes bankrupt, or its payouts are reduced to the level it was funded, or some combination of them.

If your politicians had funded it using actuarial data, rates would have changed every year, then there would be no discussion. Instead they assumed that population would increase forever, life spans would not increase, that inflation would remain small forever and they never looked to see if the assumptions remained true. Who is at fault? You could say the politicians, but that isn't right; the people are at fault, they elect the politicians. They screwed themselves. You made your bed, now lay in it.


____________

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32342
Credit: 14,276,677
RAC: 7,949
United Kingdom
Message 1299050 - Posted: 26 Oct 2012, 19:14:23 UTC

pensions

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11794
Credit: 1,787,679
RAC: 1,700
Syria
Message 1299104 - Posted: 26 Oct 2012, 20:54:39 UTC - in response to Message 1299008.

Sorry, I woke up 40 years ago, & my bed is made snug thank you very much.
____________

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11794
Credit: 1,787,679
RAC: 1,700
Syria
Message 1299340 - Posted: 27 Oct 2012, 11:54:12 UTC - in response to Message 1296557.

Going to give Chris S a mild stroke here....

It's about time that ALL public utilities are nationalised!


Well, I'll go to the foot of our stairs, would you Adam & Eve it? The man has got it at last. Took a while, but better late than never. These NHS supplied pacemakers are jolly good you know.


Nope, always known it, just coudn't locate the info I wanted......

...give muppets a lot of rope & they'll end up hanging themselves! In this case, very nice of them to do so.


Another 2 reasons why they should be renationalised....

Consumer wins case

Nice one Son.

Energy bully boys threaten to break in - just to read your meter

Hmmn, what a shame mine are outside or it might have been time to get another 2 German Shephards......

And the government's stance on all this? Butch to "reign in" the utility companies....oh really Butch? Then please explain this: -

Winter of Discontent

____________

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11794
Credit: 1,787,679
RAC: 1,700
Syria
Message 1300494 - Posted: 30 Oct 2012, 10:29:59 UTC

Oh dear, it looks like the "silly season" is back!

Anyone but Branson

There's a nice comment to the article which made me chuckle.....

"Not one of us! He made his own money and didn't inherit it."

And an even better one that just might work......

"Make the lot self employed, and make them work for there money,no garden leave, no sick leave, I could go on and on,what a load of wasters."

____________

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32342
Credit: 14,276,677
RAC: 7,949
United Kingdom
Message 1300523 - Posted: 30 Oct 2012, 13:11:04 UTC

Branson like Alan Sugar, is still seen by the "Establishment" as a pile 'em high, sell 'em cheap, up market barrow boy.

It is high time that attitude changed.

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11794
Credit: 1,787,679
RAC: 1,700
Syria
Message 1300534 - Posted: 30 Oct 2012, 13:47:30 UTC - in response to Message 1300523.

Branson like Alan Sugar, is still seen by the "Establishment" as a pile 'em high, sell 'em cheap, up market barrow boy.

It is high time that attitude changed.



Couldn't have said it better myself!
____________

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11794
Credit: 1,787,679
RAC: 1,700
Syria
Message 1300720 - Posted: 31 Oct 2012, 15:25:01 UTC

Oh dear, just proves that "Money Talks, Honesty Walks"

The problem with the civil service is that many of the good ones are trapped in that due to constant rules & regulations changing, it's almost impossible to keep abreast of those changes, & when they have used their common sense, actually get reprimanded which I have personally witnessed & felt genuinely sorry for the person geting reprimanded as it shouldn't have happened in public!

As already stated by myself, the major problem is not the civil servants themselves but the mandarins (as well as some "jobsworths" that slip through) that control them! This is what needs changing & reforming, not the civil service itself!


Titantic cover up of safety warnings

"Notes written by civil servant Maurice Clarke five hours before her departure from Southampton on April 10, 1912, were dismissed because its owners were bent on making sure she left for New York on time. The cover-up has emerged for the first time in a century after Mr Clarke's 'smoking gun' documents were made available for sale at auction. Clarke was told to keep quiet and threatened with the sack after he said Titanic should have 30 not 20 lifeboats, which could have saved more than 600 lives when the liner later hit an Atlantic iceberg and sank."

Not much difference then 100 years later!

____________

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12998
Credit: 7,664,901
RAC: 6,422
United States
Message 1300734 - Posted: 31 Oct 2012, 16:29:19 UTC - in response to Message 1300720.
Last modified: 31 Oct 2012, 16:29:44 UTC

Ah the quantification of risk. The thing humans are terrible at but have 20/20 hindsight on.

Just ask the captain of the Costa Concordia.
____________

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11794
Credit: 1,787,679
RAC: 1,700
Syria
Message 1300738 - Posted: 31 Oct 2012, 17:03:56 UTC - in response to Message 1300734.

Ah the quantification of risk. The thing humans are terrible at but have 20/20 hindsight on.

Just ask the captain of the Costa Concordia.


Maurice Clarke having hindsight on April 10 1912? Seeing what you only want to see again! Nothing new there then is there?
____________

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12998
Credit: 7,664,901
RAC: 6,422
United States
Message 1300800 - Posted: 31 Oct 2012, 20:55:27 UTC - in response to Message 1300738.

Ah the quantification of risk. The thing humans are terrible at but have 20/20 hindsight on.

Just ask the captain of the Costa Concordia.


Maurice Clarke having hindsight on April 10 1912? Seeing what you only want to see again! Nothing new there then is there?

Quantification of risk. Do you give everyone on the airplane a parachute and rocket ejection seat? Do you put seatbelts and airbags on a bus? Do you forbid commission sales of option arm liars loans? Quantification of risk.

____________

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11794
Credit: 1,787,679
RAC: 1,700
Syria
Message 1300806 - Posted: 31 Oct 2012, 21:45:57 UTC - in response to Message 1300800.

Off on your "profit" high horse again!

I was highlighting the fact that there are civil servants out there[past,present & hopefully, future] that are/were good at their job. Maurice Clarke highlighted the fact that even though Titanic had met the legal requirements, there were insufficient lifeboats in the event of a disaster - he was proven correct without him having the benefit of hindsight!

The point being that had they took his advice & just increased by 50% the death toll could have been reduced by 50%.

"Clarke was told to keep quiet and threatened with the sack after he said Titanic must have 30 not 20 lifeboats, which could have saved more than 600 lives when the liner later hit an Atlantic iceberg and sank."
____________

NickProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 11
Posts: 4004
Credit: 2,055,322
RAC: 478
United Kingdom
Message 1300842 - Posted: 1 Nov 2012, 1:40:06 UTC
Last modified: 1 Nov 2012, 1:50:07 UTC

Regarding the UK state pension system, up until the mid 1960's it was run
as a separate government fund. During this time it has excess funds, and like
school boys let free in a sweet shop, successive governments dipped into
this fund until it was all gone. Because of lack of controls on social spending
no surplus pension fund was ever built up again because the excess money
available was being spent else where. Now, today, the tail is catching up with
the dog and now people will be driven to doing their own independent pension
arrangements because one day the state pension may either have to be greatly
reduced or stopped all together. The governments idea on this is to have a
government controlled private pension system to safeguards against pension
companies committing any dastardly deeds....good idea....for the government
will force the pension companies to operate the funds under very strict
ethics and controls. Then years down the line when these funds are bursting
with excess money, Mr Browns son becomes chancellor and dips his hands into it
just like the old-man did years before....."Excess funds my dear boy, that's
naughty! going to have to apply a wind-fall tax on that"..."Er, can't we just
increase the pension payouts to our punters, Mr Brown? even though we are
trying to make sure we do have sufficient funds to see us through the lean years"...."Shut yur Mouth!!!and pay up".
____________
The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Profile betregerProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 2593
Credit: 5,390,900
RAC: 3,531
United States
Message 1300843 - Posted: 1 Nov 2012, 1:46:47 UTC - in response to Message 1300842.

Nick, you describe a very sorry, Malthusian condition of your society and maybe the specie.
____________

NickProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 11
Posts: 4004
Credit: 2,055,322
RAC: 478
United Kingdom
Message 1300845 - Posted: 1 Nov 2012, 1:55:50 UTC - in response to Message 1300843.

Nick, you describe a very sorry, Malthusian condition of your society and maybe the specie.

Betreger, I've never read Malthus, shame on me may be, so you will have to
enlighten me here. So, are you hanging me from the nearest yardarm? he-he.


____________
The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11794
Credit: 1,787,679
RAC: 1,700
Syria
Message 1300846 - Posted: 1 Nov 2012, 2:00:08 UTC

"Must it not then be acknowledged by an attentive examiner of the histories of mankind, that in every age and in every State in which man has existed, or does now exist

That the increase of population is necessarily limited by the means of subsistence,

That population does invariably increase when the means of subsistence increase, and,

That the superior power of population is repressed, and the actual population kept equal to the means of subsistence, by misery and vice."

Hmmn, wondering if that's why the "austerity" program was introduced......
____________

NickProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 11
Posts: 4004
Credit: 2,055,322
RAC: 478
United Kingdom
Message 1300848 - Posted: 1 Nov 2012, 2:02:29 UTC - in response to Message 1300846.

"Must it not then be acknowledged by an attentive examiner of the histories of mankind, that in every age and in every State in which man has existed, or does now exist

That the increase of population is necessarily limited by the means of subsistence,

That population does invariably increase when the means of subsistence increase, and,

That the superior power of population is repressed, and the actual population kept equal to the means of subsistence, by misery and vice."

Hmmn, wondering if that's why the "austerity" program was introduced......

I'll have to sleep on that one, Sirius....

____________
The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11794
Credit: 1,787,679
RAC: 1,700
Syria
Message 1300850 - Posted: 1 Nov 2012, 2:10:25 UTC - in response to Message 1300848.

Same here....we gotta be careful quoting Thomas Robert Malthus.......

....he influenced.......

Karl Marx
Charles Darwin
John Maynard Keynes
Chairman Mao

...& I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of the louts from the "Bullingdon Club" were influenced by him.
____________

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12998
Credit: 7,664,901
RAC: 6,422
United States
Message 1300861 - Posted: 1 Nov 2012, 3:40:25 UTC - in response to Message 1300806.

You don't get it. It isn't profit. Nothing is 100% safe. Not the chair you are sitting in. Someone has to decide if that chair is safe enough. Quantify the risk. Some well meaning bureaucrat decided on the number of lifeboat seats that was sufficient. He is the person who quantified the risk. There is always someone who comes along and says that isn't safe enough. There is always some loss of life event that "proves" it wasn't safe enough.

After the sinking there isn't a bureaucrat that would let a boat sail with less seats on the lifeboats than passengers and crew. But is that enough? Is that safe enough? Can you quantify that risk? Consider that having exactly the same number of seats means each life boat must be completely full or someone goes down with the ship. Quantify that risk. Is 10% extra capacity enough that in the confusion of an order to abandon ship there still will be enough seats on the last lifeboat to pull away? Does it need to be 20% more? Lines can foul and a lifeboat might not be able to be launched. How about if the ship lists severely enough that the lifeboats can't be launched from one side? Quantify the risk.

The bureaucrat will quantify this risk differently than the ship builder/owner. The bureaucrat is charged with public safety. The ship builder has profit to think about. Can the bureaucrat quantify his risk in money? Yes he will. The ship builder will. His insurance company has to. Which risk measure is right? As I said humans are horrible at doing this.

Consider Apollo. The USA burned the crew of Apollo 1 to death. Risk managers didn't think there was a problem until Murphy showed them there was. But consider the rest of the program. What was the risk of a failure bad enough to kill a crew from launch to landing. Remember Apollo 13. The risk was very very high, likely over 10%. Yet many people would have done anything for a ride. Are they so willing for a ride on a commercial airliner? Can you imagine if the same risk factor was attached to that? Why the difference in acceptable risk? Think about participants in "extreme sports" before you answer. Think about the people who refused to evacuate from hurricane Sandy's path. Humans are horrible at judging risk. This should be no surprise, casinos only exist because of this.

So how much risk is acceptable? Does the monetary value to lower that risk change the level of risk that is acceptable? Does the "coolness" of the activity change the level of the risk that is acceptable?

Tough questions. Humans don't have good answers.

Quantify that risk!

____________

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 . . . 26 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Last Gasp Saloon

Copyright © 2014 University of California